Jammu, March 20: In SWP No. 908/1988 titled Subash Raina V/s State of J&K & Ors after hearing HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ordered as under:-
01. The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, has challenged Order No. CEO/K/2895-2901 dated 30.06.1988 issued by respondents No. 4 and 5 whereby services of the petitioners have been discontinued w.e.f., 01.07.1988.
A direction commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service has also been sought. Besides this, the petitioner has also challenged the vires of Section 14(2) of the J&K Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1986. .
As per case of the petitioner, he was appointed as Pujari at Darbar of respondent No. 1 on 27.09.1986 by respondent No. 4 on a consolidated salary of Rs. 700/- per month. It has been submitted that at the time when the petitioner was employed in the Darbar, he was a student and he had left his studies.
It has been submitted that in terms of impugned order dated 30.06.1988 (supra), his services have been discontinued thereby ruining the career of the petitioner. It has been submitted that the petitioner was given to understand that his employment is permanent in nature. It is being submitted that the petitioner discharged his duties with devotion and honestly but without any fault on his part, his services were terminated by respondents No. 4 and 5.
It has been submitted that the petitioner has a number of dependents to look after, as such, the impugned order has worked harshly against him.
03. According to the petitioner, the impugned order of disengagement of the petitioner is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution of India being in derogation of principles of natural justice. It has been submitted that services of the petitioner could not have been terminated without adopting procedure prescribed under law. It has been submitted that no enquiry was held by the respondents before dispensing with the services of the petitioner.
The respondents have denied having assured the petitioner that his appointment will be made permanent in nature. It has been submitted that having regard to the nature of the impugned order, no enquiry whatsoever was required to be conducted before disengaging the petitioner.
It has been contended that Jammu and Kashmir Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act is not violative of any provisions of the Constitution and there is no ground to assail the vires of the said Act. It has been submitted that the ground projected by the petitioner is baseless and misconceived.
07. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case................................................................................
21. Even if it is assumed that the present writ petition is maintainable still then the petitioner does not have a case on merits as well. A perusal of the impugned order of disengagement would reveal that the petitioner has been disengaged along with two more employees as their services were no more required by the Board.
The impugned order does not cast any stigma on the petitioner and it is not punitive in nature.
Admittedly, the engagement of the petitioner as Pujari with the respondent-Board was purely on adhoc basis. An adhoc appointee has no vested right to the SWP No. 908/1988 Page 14 of 14 post against, which he has been appointed.
Employment of an adhoc appointee ends the moment the purpose or term for which such an employee was hired comes to an end.
The respondents have clearly indicated in the impugned order that services of the petitioner along with two more employees are no more required by the respondent-Board.
The petitioner does not have a right to continue on the post having regard to the fact that nature of his employment is purely adhoc. He, therefore, cannot seek an order for continuation in service against the respondents.
22. For what has been discussed hereinbefore, the writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
|